Congress, NASA

Did yesterday’s sound and fury signify anything?

Yesterday morning the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hosted a hearing on the past, present, and (especially) future of human spaceflight, and attendees heard their fair share of complaints about the nation’s current space policy. Witnesses, in particular former astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan and former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, criticized everything from the decision to retire the shuttle to a perceived over-reliance on “certain entrepreneurial companies which have yet to show that they can deliver the laundry to ISS, never mind the crew that would wear it,” as Griffin put it in his opening statement.

Their criticism of the state of NASA’s human spaceflight program attracted some attention, but how significant is it? Armstrong, for example, complained that the current situation, where NASA has to rely on Russia for transporting crews to and from the ISS, is “lamentably embarrassing and unacceptable”, a soundbite that got a lot of play in reports of the hearing. While it may be embarrassing and unacceptable, it actually has its roots in the implementation of the prior nation human space exploration policy, the Vision for Space Exploration, which had inherent in its original goals (retiring the shuttle by 2010 and putting what was then called the Crew Exploration Vehicle into service in 2014) a gap as well. Armstrong also said commercial proposals to continue flying the shuttle (apparently a reference to United Space Alliance’s CCDev-2 proposal to continue shuttle flights at a low flight rate) “should be carefully evaluated prior to allowing them to be rendered ‘not flightworthy’ and their associated ground facilities to be destroyed.” However, that proposal was evaluated, and rejected, by NASA, and for all practical purposes the point of no return for extending shuttle operations has long since passed. And one wonders if officials at Boeing, one of the four companies with funded CCDev-2 awards (or, for that matter, ATK and ULA, which have unfunded CCDev-2 agreements) are chuckling over being lumped in with “entrepreneurial companies”, a comment that seems primarily a jibe at SpaceX.

So what, then, was the purpose of the hearing? There seems to be no enthusiasm for trying to salvage the shuttle from retirement, despite Armstrong’s testimony. Similarly, there appears to be little concrete interest in reducing the gap between the shuttle’s retirement and the introduction of a replacement system to carry astronauts to low Earth orbit, be it a commercial crew system (neither House nor Senate appropriators have proposed funding CCDev at the administration’s request) or the Space Launch System (which will not be ready to fly crews for about a decade, according to NASA’s plans, which key members of Congress seem to have signed off on given last week’s announcement, and for which there seems to be little appetite for additional funding to accelerate its development).

NASA itself was not represented on this panel, and didn’t seem to take the criticism levied at it too seriously, based on its response in a statement from an agency spokesman. “We respect the contributions Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan have made in service to our country, and thank them for helping to pave the way for our exciting future forward,” the statement read. “Just as their ambitious missions captivated the nation’s attention nearly a half-century ago, today’s American space explorers are leading the way to even farther destinations that will one day allow the first astronauts to set foot on Mars. It is a bold vision laid out by President Obama and Congress, in bi-partisan fashion, to pioneer new frontiers, push the bounds of exploration, and test the limits of innovation and technological development.”

So this hearing may have been little more than an opportunity for critics of the administration’s plan—which, as the NASA statement implied, has the endorsement of Congress in the form of last year’s authorization act—to vent their frustrations that things aren’t going they way they would like, rather than an attempt to reshape policy in the near-term. With the current authorization act in effect for two more fiscal years, and little interest by appropriators to rectify those perceived shortcomings by, say, putting more money into SLS and MPCV (or CCDev), the current policy is likely to be in place at least into 2013. And even if a new president takes office in January 2013, space is probably not going to be a high priority for him or her given the current focus of candidates’ campaigns on jobs, the economy, and other issues outside the realm of human spaceflight.

60 comments to Did yesterday’s sound and fury signify anything?

  • I did a search last night for the web sites of mainstream media outlets and all the space-related sites.

    Couldn’t find anything, other than here.

    Yesterday’s hearing was the sound of one hand clapping.

  • amightywind

    So what, then, was the purpose of the hearing?

    The purpose of the hearing was to further discredit the administration and the NASA leadership for political purposes. At that it was successful.

    And even if a new president takes office in January 2013, space is probably not going to be a high priority for him…

    NASA never is a high priority compared to the economy. That doesn’t mean NASA policy won’t be radically restructured, and that the gravy train for Nerdspace will end.

  • Justin Kugler

    Excellent analysis, Jeff.

  • Ah, Jeff. You chose the appropriate phrase from Shakespeare in the title of your article to describe this so-called “hearing”:
    … full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
    Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

  • Yesterday’s hearing was the sound of one hand clapping.

    So true.

    That doesn’t mean NASA policy won’t be radically restructured, and that the gravy train for Nerdspace will end.

    You’re a political hack Windy. If the great St. Ronnie Raygun proposed what the Obamanator did thirty years ago, you would be falling all over yourself worshiping the plan.

  • BeanieCounterFromDownunder

    These individuals contributed positively and negatively in the past. They’re well past their use-by date so they should do the honorable thing and return to whence they came. All they really demonstrate is their lack of ability and intelligence in the face of new challenges they are totally ill-equipped to handle along with their obvious agreement to act as puppets for their current handlers. Sad!

  • Ben Joshua

    Senator Nelson, presenting to the Augustine panel, cautioned them to include heavy lift, preferably shuttle derived or modeled, in their recommendations, lest their be political reaction insisting on heavy lift.

    A small group of politically powerful defenders of “the way things have always been done” had a little pep rally yesterday, punctuating the reaction Nelson as much as promised. Did they present a workable, sustainable policy vision, or rhetoric that fails to stand up to analysis?

    Armstrong’s concern over dependence on Soyuz is well placed. But the answer eludes this stalwart group of Apollo reprise advocates.

    America’s “other” space program, CC-DEV, is apparently solving the Soyuz issue quickly. Can we all cheer about that?

    While lobbyists for SLS contractors fan the embers of contracts to nowhere, their are great things happening at OSC, Sierra, Virgin, SpaceX, et al. Eventually, maybe fifteen years out, maybe sooner, the track record will be apparent.

    In the meantime, take heart that the solution to Soyuz dependence is close at hand, and a hopeful sign of things to come.

  • common sense

    “And even if a new president takes office in January 2013, space is probably not going to be a high priority for him…”

    Yeah well maybe the people that lead the NASA efforts and I primarily mean Congress but we can probably include the CxP leadership might have been smart to agree to the FY11 budget.

    This President no matter what the clowns say took NASA seriously and asked for more money. Congress denied all since Congress only want a big rocket that they do not even fund properly.

    Maybe this piece of theatrics was put in place to show how bad Congress really is? Bad in a very bipartisan way.

    Pathetic.

    Oh yeah what w need is a commercial Space Shuttle and then a refund with interests to the taxpayers of the difference in price before and after privatization of Shuttle. I would LOVE to see that happen.

    Oh well.

  • Coastal Ron

    From Space.com’s coverage of the hearing, I saw this Cernan “intangible”:

    Cernan is dubious about this [Commercial Crew by 2025] timeline, however.

    “It will be near the end of the decade before these new entrants will be able to place a human safely and cost-effectively in Earth orbit,” he said.

    OK, this first one – “place a human safely”

    The Shuttle does not have a Launch About System, and there is so much concern about falling ice issues that the vehicle must be inspected after each launch to see if the vehicle needs to be abandoned in space.

    Commercial Crew vehicles, on the other hand, all have Launch Abort Systems that will provide safe escape at any time during the ascent. Even the MPCV/SLS won’t be able to do that, since it’s tower LAS must be jettisoned during flight.

    And of course there would be return to flight issues that would impact safety too, since we’d no longer have the same people operating the same systems that were used during the Shuttle program when they were at peak safety levels.

    Winner = Commercial Crew

    The other statement is “cost-effectively”

    Independent studies have shown that the Shuttle cost $1.5B per flight during it’s 30 years, and there would be no real expectation that it would be any less expensive if they started it back up again. So that’s $214,286/seat for temporary 2-week visits to the ISS.

    We currently spend $63M/seat on Soyuz for seats in 2016, so although our pride may take a hit, our pocketbook doesn’t. Commercial Crew prices are not set yet, but Boeing has stated that they plan to be competitive with Soyuz, and SpaceX has stated that they think they can offer $20M/seat for a full capsule ($140M/launch). At 1/3 to 1/10 the price of Shuttle, there is plenty of wiggle room in case these prices go up.

    Winner = Soyuz and Commercial Crew

    This just points out again that while Cernan is an expert in lunar missions, he is not a expert in getting crew to the ISS.

  • Space Cadet

    Prediction: In the end, commercial crew will reduce the cost of flights to ISS by a large factor. And Congress will reduce the NASA budget, specifically the human space flight budget, by the amount of $ saved by CCDEV vs Shuttle, leaving NASA with its other mission directorates funded at about the same historical levels and a somewhat lower overall budget that becomes the ‘new normal’ NASA top line budget.

    Opponents of commercial space will point to the disappearance of the money saved from NASA’s budget as proof that commercial space was a huge mistake, while proponents of commercial space will point the difference in cost of HSF as a great vindication.

  • Vladislaw

    Griffin said himself it costs 2.4 billion just to own the shuttles. It costs 300 million to launch. So it would 3 billion a year just to launch it 2 times a year. That doesn’t include any payload or intergration costs. Add in that it would cost billions just to get it back to flight ready status and you are looking at closer to 2.5 – 4 billion for each of those first two launches. The shuttle did what it was supposed to, build the station. Time to put the shuttle to bed once and for all.

  • Vladislaw

    “The purpose of the hearing was to further discredit the administration and the NASA leadership for political purposes. At that it was successful.”

    So it wasn’t about what is best for the Nation, wasn’t about where we go from here. It was nothing but kabuki theater for a VERY tiny audience. So small that Hall had to offer an apology to the witnesses because no one was there, they were all to “busy” with other things more important. It barely even got covered by the news.

    Personally, I don’t think you are discrediting anyone if you are in a closet howling at the moon. This was exactly that, a couple people ranting that no one was paying attention to. Not even the majority of the members of the committee.

  • Aremis Asling

    Wow, talk about sour grapes. Sure, they don’t like the ‘gap’. Neither do I. But their real, honest to gods answer is revive the shuttle? Really? I mean, two years ago, maybe even last year that might have been possible.

    With all due respect, Neil and Gene, shuttle’s ship has sailed, hit and iceberg, and sunk. I don’t care which side of the SLS/ComSpace divide you sit, Shuttle is not a viable alternative.

    No wonder Armstrong stayed out of the spotlight so long. Now that he shows up again, he can’t help but demonstrate how little he understands about the current state of US Human Space Flight.

    And Griffin’s just annoyed that his pet rockets were cancelled. Or perhaps he honestly believed that a rocket that was as far from completion at cancellation as it was at inception just needed a little more time and money. Bless his heart.

  • amightywind

    Personally, I don’t think you are discrediting anyone if you are in a closet howling at the moon.

    To make changes at NASA you must gain majorities in congress and win the Whitehouse. A simple way to do this is to publicly discredit your opponents at every opportunity, and they’re have been lots of ‘em! This will also help to staunch the wacky ideas of the activist,s who can continue to do damage within NASA, until the election.

    This President no matter what the clowns say took NASA seriously and asked for more money.

    He asked for more money to placate is many supporters in the non-HSF divisions of NASA.

  • SpaceColonizer

    @Coastal Ron

    Sorry, have to point out your typo… “$214,286/seat” should read more like “$214,286,000/seat”. For a second I got confused and was like “what? Shuttle seat for two week trip to ISS is about the same as 10 minutes in “just barely space” on a suborbital flight next year from Virgin? I know probably most people figured it out on their own, just saying.

  • Coastal Ron

    Many thanks SpaceColonizer for pointing that out. You’re tight, $214M/seat is what it should have said.

  • vulture4

    –>>This President no matter what the clowns say took NASA seriously and asked for more money.
    ->He asked for more money to placate is many supporters in the non-HSF divisions of NASA.

    non-HSF divisions? That would be all the divisions that actually produce science and technology of practical value, like air transport, weather and climate prediction, and environmental monitoring? Or 98% of the scientific data, which is from unmanned spacecraft? I do not think we should equate NASA with HSF.

  • Roga

    It’s really too bad to see erstwhile heroes like this allow themselves to be reduced to political cannon fodder.

  • amightywind

    weather and climate prediction, and environmental monitoring.

    Throw ISS operations in there, transfer the funds to HSF and you form the basis for my plan for funding Constellation Mark II. We already have an EPA and NOAA for those other activities.

  • common sense

    @ vulture4 wrote @ September 23rd, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    “I do not think we should equate NASA with HSF.”

    So much so that HSF is not even mentioned in the Space Act.

    As far as the comment of our own amightywind himself. We all know amightywind is not here to make sense. Rather to kick some a.. and take names. In virtual reality of course.

    Sometime I almost wish Sarah makes it and then we’ll see the results. DidI just write this? Nah let me take that back. Much more fun to read amightywind posts for another few years.

  • vulture4

    Shuttle was ordered cancelled in 2004. Wayne Hale said in 2008 that even then (before Obama’s election) it was not possible to extend Shuttle because the manufacture of major parts had been shut down and the tooling and in some cases the companies that produced the parts had been dismantled and dispersed. This didn’t stop the other party from claiming Obama shut down the Shuttle, as they again did here.

    The CAB recommended that the Shuttle replacement be designed solely for access to LEO, saying a more ambitious plan would fail. They recommended flying the Shuttle until the replacement was operational. They were ignored by Bush/Griffin on both counts.

  • Shuttle was retired because, in the words of the CAIB report, it was “a complex and risky system.” In short, it killed 14 people.

    It’s amazing how there is an endless wealth of people who complain now about the U.S. relying on Soyuz, even though that decision was made in January 2004.

    Sean O’Keefe told the Senate space committee on January 28, 2004 that it would be a minimum four-year gap once Shuttle retired before we’d have a U.S. vehicle, and in the interim we’d have to rely on Soyuz. The January 30, 2004 Florida Today reported that O’Keefe had told astronauts he’d already begun negotiations to move ISS crew transfers from Shuttle to Soyuz because Soyuz was considered safer.

    Where were Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan in January 2004 when all this was happening?

    For those who want details, I wrote about all this on July 4:

    http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2011/07/complex-and-risky-system.html

    I also recommend watching the January 28, 2004 Senate hearing. The link is at:

    http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/11/after-bush-cancelled-space-shuttle.html

  • reader

    The purpose of the hearing was to further discredit the administration and the NASA leadership for political purposes. At that it was successful.

    Dunno, seemed like an opportunity for a few broken records to sound off once again and thoroughly discredit themselves with self-contradictory, unrealistic and irrelevant statements.

  • Guys, I don’t know about Cernan but Armstrong spent his post-Apollo time teaching aerospace engineering. These men are international heroes. They are not know-nothings or doddering old fools. Disagree with their points of view, show where they are wrong, but do not disrespect the men themselves.

  • When old people say stupid things.. well, we need to show some respect and recognize their achievements. Former NASA administrators say stupid things..

  • BeanieCounterFromDownunder

    Well I’d show them respect if they deserved it which was associated with past achievements. None of these achievements has any relevance with respect to the new environment that NASA finds itself facing today. Therefore while they have my respect for those past honors, none now.

  • common sense

    @ Ed Minchau wrote @ September 24th, 2011 at 12:48 am

    If an astronaut even the first man on the Moon says something stupid that will impact my life then I should roll over and say okay?

    You of course would accept that right? With all possible respect of course.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Steve –

    If you try to remind everyone of the facts on this every time the neocon attack line is repeated over the next months, then you’re going to be a very very busy man.

    And there will be a lot more nonsense spouted as well, as the general technique of those idiots is to combine so many mistatements of fact together in one sentence that it is very difficult to knock down all of them all at once.

    Study Windy’s technique here, for example. Generally, one post of his combines so many mistatements of fact that it would take a page long post to refute them all.

  • Coastal Ron

    Ed Minchau wrote @ September 24th, 2011 at 12:48 am

    Guys, I don’t know about Cernan but Armstrong spent his post-Apollo time teaching aerospace engineering. These men are international heroes.

    Yes they are international heroes. But they allowed themselves to be used for political purposes, which turned them into political partisans and opened them up to political dissection.

    And again, if they had been testifying about the challenges that await us in going back to the Moon, then their first-hand knowledge would be unquestioned.

    But what does Cernan know about the safety and economics of the Shuttle? And what does Armstrong know about the latest generation of spacecraft and the companies that are building them? Nothing that makes them experts.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Jeff –

    I keep on asking posters here how they think ATK would do under Romney.
    How do you think ATK would do under Romney?

  • vulture4

    @Stephen C. Smith: You have a great blog, and I find it very informative. However as I’m sure you know the CAIB called for replacement of Shuttle with a launch system designed only for getting to LEO and said anything more complicated would fail. Moreover, the CAIB said the Shuttle could fly until a replacement system for human launch was operational. There was nothing in the CAIB to suggest that the Shuttle should be abandoned at assembly complete.

  • Vladislaw

    “I keep on asking posters here how they think ATK would do under Romney.

    How do you think ATK would do under Romney?”

    President’s tend to try and strengthen or reward states of their party. I would imagine he will do what most presidents do. Will make ONE policy statement about space then forget it. So he will probably sign on to the SLS and forget about NASA the rest of his term.

  • If you try to remind everyone of the facts on this every time the neocon attack line

    I repeat, what do you imagine that a “neocon” is, and why do you think that they have anything to do with space policy?

  • DCSCA

    Ed Minchau wrote @ September 24th, 2011 at 12:48 am
    Guys, I don’t know about Cernan but Armstrong spent his post-Apollo time teaching aerospace engineering.

    Cernan spent a great deal of time with business interests, on corporate boards as Armstring has, including oil firms for a time (Armstrong w/Marathon Oil; Cernal w/Coral Petroleum) — Cernan was also the ‘color man’ for ABC News shuttle mission coverage when they covered them ‘live’ and was space consultant for ABC News in the ’80s and ’90s. His advocacy for returning to the moon and talking to young people to cultivate interest in HSF is unbounded. Interviewed him myself. He love to talk space.

  • If an astronaut even the first man on the Moon says something stupid that will impact my life then I should roll over and say okay?

    No, you would presumably show why what he said was incorrect.

  • common sense

    @ Ed Minchau wrote @ September 24th, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    “No, you would presumably show why what he said was incorrect.”

    I and several others have done just so if you’d care to follow hour conversation.

  • vulture4 wrote:

    @Stephen C. Smith: You have a great blog, and I find it very informative. However as I’m sure you know the CAIB called for replacement of Shuttle with a launch system designed only for getting to LEO and said anything more complicated would fail. Moreover, the CAIB said the Shuttle could fly until a replacement system for human launch was operational. There was nothing in the CAIB to suggest that the Shuttle should be abandoned at assembly complete.

    I said no such thing.

    Please read what I said. I quoted the CAIB report. The CAIB report was the basis for the Bush administration decision. I did not write that the CAIB made that decision.

  • SpaceColonizer

    “I keep on asking posters here how they think ATK would do under Romney. How do you think ATK would do under Romney?” E.P. Grondine

    I suppose that really depends on the congress that comes with him.

    But wasn’t he given the opportunity to answer the space question that actually got asked a few debates ago? I thought I recall him giving an answer that suggested his support for using competitive free market principles, meaning he would support commercial, although he didn’t directly refer to the commercial programs, probably because he’s not aware of it. Correct me if I’m wrong, I know Gingrich answered the question, and Pawlenty did too sort of, but thought I remember Romney give a short answer too.

    Here’s my quick assumptions on what I think would happen under each candidate-

    Gingrich- Cancel SLS, Use competitions to encourage markets for various aspects of what NASA does (even science, although I don’t think that will prove practical)
    Cain- “MY solution is… fix it.” Which translates into he won’t change anything except how much money we spend on NASA.
    Romney- Support commercial, but what he does to SLS will depend on his advisors, which will likely be establishment GOPers in support of status quo.
    Bachmann- She won’t do anything, and I’m not just talking about space issues.
    Huntsman- Toss up. He’s pro science and pretty practical… but also probably disinteristed enough to be influenced by the same advisors that would influence Romney in support of SLS.
    Perry- Will sopport SLS fully, crony capitalism all the way.
    Paul- “If Texas and Florida want space programs to support jobs, they should do it themselves and not ask the federal government to pay for it.” Too true, too true… No more NASA… no more SLS unless the states pay for it… no more gov’t investments for commercial… if there’s a market for commercial, fed will neither help nor get in the way and it would be up to states to purchase those services for their own space programs if they want to. Which won’t happen at all since the states can’t support their own programs right now.

    Wild guesses based on my opinion and understanding of the candidates. I know you were asking about ATK specifically. SLS benefits ATK. Commercial programs benefit ATK if they make successful bids with Liberty, which I doubt unless they pretty much control NASA, which they might.

  • vulture4

    Armstrong was a superb pilot and commander, one of the best. He was prepared for the LEM simulator crash, the unanticipated navigation error on Apollo 11 that sent them into a boulder field, taking control without asking mission control, the landing with only seconds of fuel. And after the landing he was utterly modest, making no attempt to get rich off his feat. It’s hard to imagine a better choice for the job of being the first man on the moon. But that was then and this is now. Armstrong left the rat race and did not keep up. As the Bob Dylan song says, “Times have changed”.

  • @vulture4:

    I do not think we should equate NASA with HSF.

    Why not?

    So much so that HSF is not even mentioned in the Space Act.

    So what?

  • E.P. Grondine

    More news on the upcoming attack –

    SpaceX is just one front – another will be Musk’s Tesla motors

    Perhaps the old JFK technique would work – step into the lion’s mouth, and knock its teeth out from the inside with a few good jokes – FDR adroitly used humor as well –

    It looks to me like jokes work better than serious statements today – I intend to try some out tomorrow on some other issues

    Thanks Space Colonizer for your short summary of Republican candidate positions – I am hoping that by next year the immediate international goal in space will have made itself clear, but we’ll see

  • DCSCA

    @vulture4 wrote @ September 25th, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Armstrong was a superb pilot and commander, one of the best.

    Best is relative in that group of test pilots and Armstrong’s cache has a touch of myth about it over time. Among the aviator astronauts themselves, Armstrong was ranked high on understanding the operational characteristics of the machines he flew but among the weaker of the ‘stick and rudder men’ who piloted the X-15– as none other than Mike Collins, his crewmate on Apollo 11, penned in his own hand in his own book,’ Carrying The Fire.”

  • DCSCA

    @vulture4 wrote @ September 25th, 2011 at 11:11 am

    “It’s hard to imagine a better choice for the job of being the first man on the moon.”

    Not really. And you’re making that assessment with 42 years of hindsight which, from a space progam advocacy POV, might rank Armstrong a weaker choice among the qualified group compared to say, Lovell or Cernan, to have been ‘first’ as his reclusivness over time has frustrated space advocates. But again, this is hindsight, not criticism. Armstrong’s template for managing this kind of acclaim has been the Lindbergh model, for better or worse– and Armstrong has spoken of Apollo 11 in the progressive context of the history of aviation. On the other hand, it was Aldrin cutting rugs on ‘Dancing With The Stars.’

    But as the veil of vaguries over selections and crew rotations has lifted in various memoirs, it was clear that as the final decisions were made for 11, particularly between Aldrin and Armstrong, ‘management’ went with Armstrong for reasons both implied and relative clear, beyond the particulars of the mission itself. Engineering and design factors, crew protocol, civilian astronaut, temperment, historical significance, etc.,. It was clear that factors beyond the mission itself influenced Slayton and Kraft to go with Armstrong– who reitereated in a 1989 presser that he had ‘zero input’ into the final decision.

    Frankly, the individual who was ‘first’ seems less important over the decades, beyond a paragraph in history books, rather than the success of the entire Apollo program itself. It can be said that from a ‘Cold War’ perspective, Apollo 8 all but won the ‘moon race’ with the subsequent landings, Apollo 11 et al, essentially gravy, the confirming epilogue to the endeavor, accomplishing an American goal- meeting Kennedy’s deadline.

  • CS, I happen to think Armstrong, Cernan, and Griffin are incorrect as well. It just sticks in my craw to see people denigrating the men rather than the ideas, particularly Armstrong and Cernan. I mean, “lack of ability and intelligence?” Really?

    Even the smartest guy in the world is wrong on a regular basis. Calling down their intelligence doesn’t change anyone’s mind. Correcting an idea just might.

  • common sense

    @ Ed Minchau wrote @ September 25th, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    I think what you are seeing is a form of outrage. Especially since the Armstrong and Cernan et al. are so well respected. When they come up with such nonsense and keep repeating it people become upset. But you were associating the comments of one poster with all. Nonetheless when they claim we can restart Shuttle how would you call that? A lack of knowledge? If so why in heck are they witnessing in the first place?

    I have the utmost respect for these people who inspired me to work in this field. BUT they are wrong. Plain wrong.

    And when they go for politics they expose themselves to all sorts of attack.

  • amightywind

    Armstrong was ranked high on understanding the operational characteristics of the machines he flew but among the weaker of the ‘stick and rudder men’ who piloted the X-15– as none other than Mike Collins

    Yeah well, to paraphrase Tom Wolff, “when the evil wind was up, Neil Armstrong showed the world pure and righteous stuff.” His balls wouldn’t fit in a dump trunk (emphasis mine!). At the same moment Michael Collins was strapped like a monkey in a bucket in the command module. I’ll leave it up to you to compare their school report cards.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi AW, all,

    For whatever its worth –

    I’ve tended to divide the astronauts into two classes: pilots and engineers. It is a different skill set. Aldrin was/is a better engineer than Armstrong, while Armstrong was a better pilot. Personally, I’ve always enjoyed speaking with the engineers more than the pilots, which is not to say that the pilots are not very gifted people as well.

    Grechko also falls into the engineer class, as did Feoktistov, and many others. As far as Collins goes, most of us here are not good enough to shine his shoes. Those seats are damned expensive, and the people who get to sit in them are carefully chosen.

    (I hope all of this does not sound obsequious.)

  • John

    NASA continues to defend the Authorization Act to protect their lack luster program, so If ATK was not on the take then what would they have done instead? The Shuttle was no deal at 1.3B for 27 ton and now they’re trying to repackage ( rig ) the Atlas V to compete with SpaceX? NASA can’t even build a crew vehicle out of fear of a shareholder stampede. 2012 cannot come soon enough.

  • Dennis

    With China coming on the scene as a space exploring nation, I dont see the USA stopping its HSF program. It justwouldnt be prudent. I think it will continue if for no other reasons than keeping a bit of an upper military advantage. Do all of you want human spaceflight ended while China sails overhead?

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ September 26th, 2011 at 8:53 am

    When peers rank peers among themselves, the measures merit high consideration. Collins’ assessment of his colleagues, their skills, strengths and flaws- penned in his own hand BTW- carry the weight of credibility- particularly as he was in the position to know as well as risk his life flying with them. Your assessments– not so much.

  • vulture4

    Aldrin was a math whiz and a great space enthusiast, but he was also a classic manic depressive and suffered from alcoholism in the post-Apollo period. I do not think the fame would have treated him well. I cannot speak for Collins, but Armstrong’s reticence was ideal; it let the nation take credit for the deed.

    Unfortunately even today Armstrong does not appear to understand why he was sent. It had nothing to do with the fantasies of “exploration” taken so seriously today.

    Kennedy was under pressure because the nonaligned countries were lining up behind the Soviets, who appeared to have the fast road to industrial power, and eventually we would be forced to surrender leadershiop or risk all-out war. I remember living in Manhatten during the air raid drills of the Cuban Missile Crisis, wondering how long the final twenty minutes of my life would seem if someone’s finger slipped on the trigger, what it would be like to be vaporized with eight million others. Kennedy had to divert the conflict from the race in nuclear arms to a symbolic contest that would not destroy humanity, but it had to be a prize so compelling that neither side could ignore it, so costly it would sap the military resources of both. The deadline was not the first day of 1970, or even 71. The deadline he gave von Braun was anytime before the Soviets landed. But the real deadline was the unknown moment that missiles would launch, and it was coming closer.

    I was in Turkey when Armstrong stepped out on the moon. I remember a Turkish man who spoke only a little English grabbing my arm, pointing at the orb in the sky, and saying excitedly “Neil Armstong! Neil Armstrong is on the moon!” The Soviet forces just across the border were forgotten, the withdrawal of American missiles from Turkey as the price for those in Cuba was irrelevant. America was ascendant.

    I did not know it at the time, but _that_ is why we went to the moon.

  • @Dennis
    “Do all of you want human spaceflight ended while China sails overhead?”
    No, of course not. That’s the reason why most of us on the Commercial Crew side want the waste of resources that is SLS ended, and instead have those resources put into something that would really advance America’s future in human spaceflight. Commercial crew allows more than a couple of flights per year, can get us back into space sooner than SLS and do it economically enough to have money left over to develop what we need to allow us to go to destinations in deep space.

  • Das Boese

    Dennis wrote @ September 26th, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    With China coming on the scene as a space exploring nation, I dont see the USA stopping its HSF program. It justwouldnt be prudent. I think it will continue if for no other reasons than keeping a bit of an upper military advantage. Do all of you want human spaceflight ended while China sails overhead?

    Your military has its own space program, NASA HSF is completely irrelevant to any “upper military advantage”.
    China isn’t the Soviet Union, and you’re not in a “Space Race, Part 2″ with them. Trying to use this as a justification for human spaceflight, especially dead-end programs like SLS/MPCV, will not work and ends up doing more harm than good.

    Scare tactics is a piss poor way of advocating something, especially if the threat is not real.

    How about supporting American human spaceflight because you’re a vital part of an international cooperation to learn how to extend human presence into space?

    Sounds much more positive, doesn’t it.

  • Frank Glover

    @ Dennis:

    “With China coming on the scene as a space exploring nation, I dont see the USA stopping its HSF program.”

    Contrary to what the Shuttle and Constellation supporters would have you believe, no one has actually proposed this. And certainly not anyone here.

    “I think it will continue if for no other reasons than keeping a bit of an upper military advantage.”

    But currently there is no *military* HSF program.

    “Do all of you want human spaceflight ended while China sails overhead?”

    Again, no one suggests that, China or not. And currently, China ‘sails overhead’ about once every two years…

    @ vulture 4:

    “…so costly it would sap the military resources of both.”

    And yet, we went to the Moon at the height of our involvement in Vietnam. Still..

    “I did not know it at the time, but _that_ is why we went to the moon.”

    And this is one of many reasons why we need not return to the Moon in an Apollo-like manner. Time was of the essence, and drove us to single-launch missions on an HLV. China can’t be the ‘new’ Soviet Union to beat, and we’d just develop a system optimized to that end, again. (some seem to be insisting on it, anyway) Space stations (plural) and orbital assembly/refueling/checkout as conceived long before Apollo, please…

  • Bennett

    vulture4 wrote @ September 26th, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    I wish I knew your real name, because that was a memorable comment.

    Thanks.

  • @vulture4: That has to be the biggest line of sentimental, myth-making crap I’ve ever heard.

  • DCSCA

    @vulture4 wrote @ September 26th, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    “I was in Turkey when Armstrong stepped out on the moon. I remember a Turkish man who spoke only a little English grabbing my arm, pointing at the orb in the sky, and saying excitedly “Neil Armstong! Neil Armstrong is on the moon!””

    The ‘soft power’ projected by Apollo astronauts visiting foreign lands on post-lunar goodwill tours remains a rare, extraordinary and unique event in the annals of international diplomacy. Witnessed it first hand while residing overseas during the Apollo days. A lunar crew presenting fragments of moon rocks with photos of Earth to heads of state to display in foreign lands; greeting their leaders and engaging with citizenry left a far more lasting– and favorable– impression of the United States in that era than some kid walking a post with an M-16 slung over his shoulder.

  • Justin Kugler

    @Prez: Even if you don’t believe his anecdote about Turkey, vulture is absolutely right about the true rationale for the Apollo program. It was a non-military contest of superiority with the Soviet Union. Go read Logsdon’s book on the subject.

  • Peter Lykke

    vulture4 wrote @ September 26th, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Thanks for that comment, and you are completely right. And post like that are the reason I continue to read this blog, BTW.

  • @Kugler: Which one? Decision or Race. Neither was terribly illuminating in terms of documenting the rationale behind the US emerging space policy under Kennedy, although they offered the subjects of Logsdon’s interviews the opportunity to craft the sort of convenient, saccharine myths that typically follow years after a popular (or at least not unpopular) policy is devised.

    Bottom line, it’s next to useless to divine an overriding impetus for the moonshot decision. Quite possibly because there was never one in the first place.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>